Grade the Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) System

[Neonchameleon]

But then, under the momentum section, if you have negative momentum, you must cancel your action die if it matches what's on your die. The rules then say "You still check the success of your move by comparing your stat plus your adds to the challenge dice, but you won’t have your action die to help you." And that's where my brain stops working, because (a) how does your action die help you--it seems like it just provides a target number for you--and (b) without the action die, how do you determine if you've succeeded on a roll or not?

You roll Action Die + Stat vs the target numbers (from the challenge dice). So you are very likely to fail without the action die.

If your momentum is negative you're in trouble and stuck in the metaphorical mud. You treat the roll of your (negative) momentum on the die as a 0 instead. So if your momentum is -4, you treat rolls of -4 as if you'd rolled a 0 instead. (And 1,2,3,5,6 as normal). A -6 momentum (that cancels 6s which would probably have otherwise succeeded) is worse than a -1 (which cancels 1s that would probably have otherwise failed anyway).

 

[Faolyn]

You roll Action Die + Stat vs the target numbers (from the challenge dice). So you are very likely to fail without the action die.

If your momentum is negative you're in trouble and stuck in the metaphorical mud. You treat the roll of your (negative) momentum on the die as a 0 instead. So if your momentum is -4, you treat rolls of -4 as if you'd rolled a 0 instead. (And 1,2,3,5,6 as normal). A -6 momentum (that cancels 6s which would probably have otherwise succeeded) is worse than a -1 (which cancels 1s that would probably have otherwise failed anyway).

@Faolyn This is from memory, but, instead of comparing the action die plus stat plus adds to the challenge dice, just compare the stat plus adds to the challenge dice.

ETA: the challenge dice set the target numbers. The action die is rolled against the numbers on the challenge dice. Basically, without the action die, you're probably only going to beat very low numbers on the challenge dice.

I think I may have it. Thanks for your help!

 

[Manbearcat]

On "writer's room" (and why I've pushed back against it historically). The below is not happening in any of these games:

There is no coalitional, clarifying process of "how exactly we all would like the game to go so lets make that happen" sort of (some kind of) collective railroading that is happening in these games.

Even in something like The Unscene in The Between, this is just a layer of color and coinciding motif/metaphor that rests atop the consequential components of The Night phase of play. The system still has all of the same say that it does in all of the other phases. No one gets to override it. Its just that "of the constellation of situations and subset of consequences you would typically select from (which follow from the fiction, the procedures of play, and are informed and constrained by everything else the game is typically informed and constrained by), those are winnowed down to ones that are feral, punchy, and hewing to the coinciding motif/metpaphor of The Unscene."

That is it. There is no coalitional thinking, no clarifying process of overriding the entirety of the (extremely weighty and play-directing) system inputs that aims toward and then fulfills a system-overriding, collective railroading prerogative.

 

[Emberashh]

On "writer's room" (and why I've pushed back against it historically). The below is not happening in any of these games:

There is no coalitional, clarifying process of "how exactly we all would like the game to go so lets make that happen" sort of (some kind of) collective railroading that is happening in these games.

Even in something like The Unscene in The Between, this is just a layer of color and coinciding motif/metaphor that rests atop the consequential components of The Night phase of play. The system still has all of the same say that it does in all of the other phases. No one gets to override it. Its just that "of the constellation of situations and subset of consequences you would typically select from (which follow from the fiction, the procedures of play, and are informed and constrained by everything else the game is typically informed and constrained by), those are winnowed down to ones that are feral, punchy, and hewing to the coinciding motif/metpaphor of The Unscene."

That is it. There is no coalitional thinking, no clarifying process of overriding the entirety of the (extremely weighty and play-directing) system inputs that aims toward and then fulfills a system-overriding, collective railroading prerogative.

Can you make this post without the thesaurus?

Possibly rude but this is incredibly hard to parse and is inundated with a lot of fluffy jargon that, frankly, sounds more like marketing than objective analysis.

 

[niklinna]

Can you make this post without the thesaurus?

Possibly rude but this is incredibly hard to parse and is inundated with a lot of fluffy jargon that, frankly, sounds more like marketing than objective analysis.

While I do occasionally have trouble reading some of @Manbearcat's posts, this is not one of them, and I see no jargon, especially of the fluffy kind.

 

[pemerton]

Wikipedia tells me that a A writers' room is a space where writers, usually of a television series, gather to write and refine scripts.

Applied to a RPG, that would suggest (i) that the participants are discussing, together, how things should unfold in their shared fiction, and (ii) that they are doing so having regard to what would make for a good story.

A RPG I play that has a version of (i) is Torchbearer 2e. After most conflicts are resolved, a compromise will be owed by one or both sides, and sometimes we discuss what that should look like. (Sometimes I just decide, wielding my GM authority!)

But (ii) is not normally part of the discussion. Rather, what (i) follows from the previous fiction, and (ii) seems fair given the degree of compromise required, is what predominates.

Apocalypse World doesn't seem to have anything comparable to this. The players declare their PCs' actions. Then either a dice roll follows, or the GM says what happens next (depending on whether or not a player-side move is triggered). The GM might ask the player a question, about what their PC knows or has done or is thinking - the player answers by portraying their PC. So there doesn't seem to be any (i). And there doesn't seem to be much (ii) either: the GM should be following the principles, none of which is "tell a good story"; and the player should be inhabiting their PC.

So anyway, I'm not seeing this "writers' room" thing.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Can you make this post without the thesaurus?

Possibly rude but this is incredibly hard to parse and is inundated with a lot of fluffy jargon that, frankly, sounds more like marketing than objective analysis.

About half the post was a quote from the Between game itself, which may have had some "marketing-type" speak in it. But otherwise besides the word "coalitional" which had never heard before but I gathered from context, the rest made sense to me

BUT, a lot of it is the language used around PbtA - and as you've pointed out (I think?) earlier, there is certainly a way of talking about PbtA which may be off-putting to folks who are not enamored of or participating in the PbtA community. (note, jargon / specialized language exists for all communities to some extent or other, and I don't think PbtA suffers from this more than most others I know of)

 

[schneeland]

So anyway, I'm not seeing this "writers' room" thing.

I tend to agree that „writer’s room“ is not a good description of a PbtA game. I would assume, though, that this description is used because the choices after rolling for a move usually happen from player/author stance, not character stance.

 

[pemerton]

I'm talking about Apocalypse World and Dungeon World, which are the two PbtA RPGs I know reasonably well.

In AW, there are 4 basic moves that require the player to make a choice, as part of resolution:

Seize By Force:

• you take definite hold of it
• you suffer little harm
• you inflict terrible harm
• you impress, dismay or frighten your enemy​

Seduce/Manipulate, vs a PC on a 7-9:

• if they do it, they mark experience [the carrot]
• if they refuse, it’s acting under fire [the stick]​

Read a Sitch:

• where’s my best escape route / way in / way past?
• which enemy is most vulnerable to me?
• which enemy is the biggest threat?
• what should I be on the lookout for?
• what’s my enemy’s true position?
• who’s in control here?​

Read a Person:

• is your character telling the truth?
• what’s your character really feeling?
• what does your character intend to do?
• what does your character wish I’d do?
• how could I get your character to __?​

I don't really see how these aren't in character choices. When I seize by force, I choose how I project my force (or defend myself). When I seduce or manipulate someone, but they are not both enthralled and subordinated to me, I choose whether to play up my niceness, or the costs of not doing what I ask. When I try and read a situation or a person, I'm on the lookout for this or that particular thing.

In DW, there are 3 basic moves that require the player to make a choice, as part of their resolution:

Hack and Slash, on a 10+:

At your option, you may choose to do +1d6 damage but expose yourself to the enemy’s attack.​

Volley, on a 7-9:

•You have to move to get the shot placing you in danger as described by the GM
•You have to take what you can get: -1d6 damage
•You have to take several shots, reducing your ammo by one​

Discern Realities:

•What happened here recently?
•What is about to happen?
•What should I be on the lookout for?
•What here is useful or valuable to me?
•Who’s really in control here?
•What here is not what it appears to be?​

The only one I can see here that may be has a not-in-character element to it is Volley, though even that might be pretty contextual.

 

[Emberashh]

About half the post was a quote from the Between game itself, which may have had some "marketing-type" speak in it. But otherwise besides the word "coalitional" which had never heard before but I gathered from context, the rest made sense to me

BUT, a lot of it is the language used around PbtA - and as you've pointed out (I think?) earlier, there is certainly a way of talking about PbtA which may be off-putting to folks who are not enamored of or participating in the PbtA community. (note, jargon / specialized language exists for all communities to some extent or other, and I don't think PbtA suffers from this more than most others I know of)

What I see is a lot of expensive words that only serve to cloud what is meant.

If they can't or won't rephrase in plain language, it speaks to a refusal to actually communicate.

Case in point, it actually took nearly a minute for ChatGPT to parse the post and spit out that all it actually said is that these games don't have any structure in them that overrides the rules.

Which, of course, is baloney (the very presence of a GM disproves that notion) and doesn't actually dispute the writers room description to begin with; that description has nothing to do with overriding rules and its another bizarre strawman being pulled out of the aether to suggest it is.